About this document

This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.


Introduction

  1. Describe the history and current status of the fishery, including fleets, sectors, vessel types and practices/gear by vessel type, landing ports, economics/markets, whether targeted/bycatch, other stocks caught in the fishery. The fishery began in BC in 1945, however significant catch were taken by the Washington fleet before this. “Catch summaries in the previous assessment (Stanley et al. 2005) began with the 1967 calendar year. While landings by Canadian vessels were assumed to be negligible for earlier years, we were aware of significant landings by Washington State vessels, but did not attempt to estimate these catches. Prior to 1967, rockfish were not identified to species in Washington landings; they were grouped as “Pacific ocean perch” or “other rockfish” (ORF). Canary rockfish were a significant but unknown proportion of the latter group. Furthermore, early Washington State data did not always distinguish whether fish caught in Area 3C originated from the northern Washington State or B.C. portion of this area. Recently, Methot and Stewart (2005) and Stewart (2007) reconstructed canary rockfish catches from U.S. waters back to 1932 for Washington-California. For Washington landings, they used the Washington trawl ORF landings from 1930-1966 and the observed proportions of canary rockfish in 1967-1970 landings to reconstruct the 1930-1966 landings to Washington State." (Stanley et al. 2009) The fishery consists of a hook and line/trap (HL) and a trawl fishery. The fishery exists all along the west coast except in the Sailish Sea. This is a targeted fishery, though are also caught in halibut, lingcod and rockfish fisheries; there is now 100% retention, 100% dockside monitoring and at sea observers.

  2. Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. “Canary rockfish typically inhabits rocky bottoms at depth of 70-270 metres, from the western Gulf of Alaska south to northern California.” (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/canary-rockfish-sebaste-canari-eng.html) “Larval rockfish feed on diatoms, dinoflagellates, tintinnids, and cladocerans. Juveniles consume copepods and euphausiids of all life stages. Adults eat demersal invertebrates and small fishes, including other species of rockfish.” (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/canary-rockfish) “In California studies, larvae and pelagic juvenile canary rockfish are reported to occupy the top 100 m for up to 3-4 months after parturition, and then settle to benthic habitats gradually moving deeper as they grow and age (Love et al. 2002). However, little is actually known about the spatial distribution of larval and juvenile stages in B.C. waters.”; “Pelagic juveniles feed on an array of planktonic items. Adults and subadults primarily eat krill and small fishes. Significant predators probably include lingcod. Like all rockfish, they have closed swim bladders and usually die if released after routine capture. Work in Oregon has shown that movements by adults that exceed 100 km are possible (DeMott 1983).” (CSAS 2009)

  3. Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis. NOAA stock assessment for SE Alaska: Olson et al. 2017 The status of canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger) in the California Current in 2015: Thorson and Wetzel 2016 DFO stock assessment: Stanley et al. 2009


Fishery Characteristics

Longevity

Answered
Very short-lived (5 < maximum age < 7)
Short-lived (7 < maximum age < 10)
Moderate life span (10 < maximum age < 20)
Moderately long-lived (20 < maximum age < 40)
Long-lived (40 < maximum age < 80)
Very long-lived (80 < maximum age < 160)
Justification
Different models give different predictions of relative depletion. see figures J.26, J.27, J.30, J.31 (Stanley et al. 2009)

Stock depletion

Answered
Crashed (D < 0.05)
Very depleted (0.05 < D < 0.1)
Depleted (0.1 < D < 0.15)
Moderately depleted (0.15 < D < 0.3)
Healthy (0.3 < D < 0.5)
Underexploited (0.5 < D)
Justification
Different models give different predictions of relative depletion. see figures J.26, J.27, J.30, J.31 (Stanley et al. 2009)

Resilence

Answered
Not resilient (steepness < 0.3)
Low resilience (0.3 < steepness < 0.5)
Moderate resilence (0.5 < steepness < 0.7)
Resilient (0.7 < steepness < 0.9)
Very Resilient (0.9 < steepness)
Justification
Steepness is fixed at 0.55 or 0.7. Given that steepness is not estimated and this is one-way trip data, it is fair to assume that chosen steepness is uncertain.

Historical effort pattern

Answered
Stable
Two-phase
Boom-bust
Gradual increases
Stable, recent increases
Stable, recent declines
Justification
See exploitation estimates in Figure J.5, J.9, J.13 (Stanley 2009). These all indicate an early increase in fishing mortality in the 1940s, which was relatively stable until the 1980s, and then increased steadily thereafter.

Inter-annual variability in historical effort

Answered
Not variable (less than 20% inter-annual change (IAC))
Variable (maximum IAC between 20% to 50%)
Highly variable (maximum IAC between 50% and 100%)
Justification
Based on Figures J.5, J.9 and J.13 (Stanley 2009), there was an intermediate variability from year to year in exploitation rate.

Historical fishing efficiency changes

Answered
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
Justification
Efficiency changes unknown, however, with changes in technology and communication, it is reasonable to assume that it is stable to increasing.

Future fishing efficiency changes

Answered
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
Justification
No information could be found. It is reasonable that efficiency could increase with increases in technology; conversely, efficiency could decline as non-targeted fleets use technology to avoid bycatch

Length at maturity

Answered
Very small (0.4 < LM < 0.5)
Small (0.5 < LM < 0.6)
Moderate (0.6 < LM < 0.7)
Moderate to large (0.7 < LM < 0.8)
Large (0.8 < LM < 0.9)
Justification
“Some female canary rockfish in B.C. waters are mature at 8 y but 50% and 100% maturity occurs at about 13 y and 20 y, respectively (Fig. 9).” (COSEWIC 2007)
See: Canary rockfish maturity.png (from COSEWIC 2007); Canary rockfish maturity from assessment.png; Canary rockfish growth.png (both from Stanley et al. 2009)

Selectivity of small fish

Answered
Very small (0.1 < S < 0.2)
Small (0.2 < S < 0.4)
Half asymptotic length (0.4 < S < 0.6)
Large (0.6 < S < 0.8)
Very large (0.8 < S < 0.9)
Justification
Selectivity is estimated in the assessment model. see Canary rockfish selectivity.png

Selectivity of large fish

Answered
Asymptotic selectivity (SL = 1)
Declining selectivity with length (0.75 < SL < 1)
Dome-shaped selectivity (0.25 < SL < 0.75)
Strong dome-shaped selectivity (SL < 0.25)
Justification
Selectivity appears to be asymptotic. (see Canary rockfish selectivity.png)

Discard rate

Answered
Low (DR < 1%)
Low - moderate (1% < DR < 10%)
Moderate (10% < DR < 30%)
Moderate - high (30% < DR < 50%)
High (50% < DR < 70%)
Justification
“We used observations of canary rockfish catch relative to halibut catch in the IPHC halibut survey for 2003-2005 to estimate a bycatch ratio of 0.006 (0.6%). We then estimate the incidental catch (discarded and retained) by applying this ratio to total halibut landings from B.C.”
“Discard estimates are not available prior to 1996 and the establishment of the independent observer program.”
“Discards for this species are minor, with generally less than 10 t per year recorded since 1996–97 for all areas (Table H.1).”
(all quotes from Stanley et al. 2009. See also Table.H.1.png)
(referring to the hook and line fishery): “These fleets now operate under a regulation of 100% retention of rockfish, with electronic review of discarding to confirm that discarding is negligible.” (Stanley et al. 2009)

Post-release mortality rate

Answered
Low (PRM < 5%)
Low - moderate (5% < PRM < 25%)
Moderate (25% < PRM < 50%)
Moderate - high (50% < PRM < 75%)
High (75% < PRM < 95%)
Almost all die (95% < PRM < 100%)
Justification
Catches are hauled up from very deep habitat; captured fish are usually dead or with distented eyes and stomach due to expanded swim bladder. Discards are treated as 100% mortality in the assessment model.

Recruitment variability

Answered
Very low (less than 20% inter-annual changes (IAC))
Low (max IAC of between 20% and 60%)
Moderate (max IAC of between 60% and 120%)
High (max IAC of between 120% and 180%)
Very high (max IAC greater than 180%)
Justification
Estimate of recruitment standard deviation not shown; projections assume recruitment standard deviation is 0.6.

Size of an existing MPA

Answered
None
Small (A < 5%)
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
Large (20% < A < 30%)
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
Justification
Canary rockfish are found somewhat offshore and outside the various rockfish conservation areas (RCAs). Historical catch locations do not fall within the RCAs and there is no mention of RCAs affecting catches in the assessment report.

Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of existing MPA

Answered
Very low (P < 1%)
Low (1% < P < 5%)
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
High (10% < P < 20%)
Fully mixed
Justification
“A tagging study conducted in Oregon (DeMott 1983) indicated that individual canary rockfish can move significant distances (>100 km).” (Stanley et al. 2009)
“Yelloweye rockfish remain near the bottom and have small home ranges, while some canary rockfish and bocaccio have larger home ranges, move long distances, and spend time suspended in the water column (Love et al. 2002). Adults of each species are most commonly found between 131 feet to 820 feet (40 to 250 m) (Love et a1. 2002; Orr et al. 2000).” (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/Documents/RangewideSOS/NMFS/Rangewide%20Status%20of%20Rockfish.pdf)

Size of a future potential MPA

Answered
None
Small (A < 5%)
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
Large (20% < A < 30%)
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
Justification
No future spatial closures are being considered

Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of future potential MPA

Answered
Very low (P < 1%)
Low (1% < P < 5%)
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
High (10% < P < 20%)
Fully mixed
Justification
No justification was provided

Initial stock depletion

Answered
Very low (0.1 < D1 < 0.15)
Low (0.15 < D1 < 0.3)
Moderate (0.3 < D < 0.5)
High (0.5 < D1)
Asymptotic unfished levels (D1 = 1)
Justification
Initial exploitation is very low (see Figures J.5, J.9, J.13; Stanley et al. 2009).


Management Characteristics

Types of fishery management that are possible

Answered
TAC (Total Allowable Catch): a catch limit
TAE (Total Allowable Effort): an effort limit
Size limit
Time-area closures (a marine reserve)
Justification
1. Describe what, if any, current management measures are used to constrain catch/effort.
“The current overall TAC is 1193 t (Table 2) with 87.70% of the canary rockfish quota allocated to trawl (T license), 11.77% to outer coast HL rockfish harvesters (ZN-outside license), and 0.53% to Pacific halibut harvesters (L license). Catches in the trawl fleet are constrained by an annual quota and vessel-specific quotas.
Hook and line catches were constrained by annual quotas and trip limits. Since 2006, there has been virtually 100% monitoring in all remaining groundfish sectors, with the exception of a small trawl fishery in the Strait of Georgia. The HL harvesters are also now constrained by sector and vessel quotas. Groundfish catches in the recreational fishery are constrained by a bag limit (for “all rockfish” combined) which varies by area." (Stanley et al. 2009)

2. Describe historical management measures, if any.
“There is also a drop in exploitation rate in the mid-1990s which coincides with significant management changes which were implemented in the trawl fishery in the mid-1990s. Additional management changes have since been implemented in the hook and line fishery in the mid- 2000s, which should also lead to reductions in exploitation on this species.”; “(referring to the commercial trawl fishery) We argue that catch rate data prior to April 1996 are not comparable over time, owing largely to the significant and varying degrees of mis-reporting. As noted before, our concerns about this period are based on the reporting of a large number of landing events, known to the senior author and others, for which the fishing logs and sales slips were obviously falsified. Furthermore, the trip limits were varied over time; thus the directions of the biases would vary from one year to the next, or over groups of years. The dysfunction in the catch reporting system and the resulting inability to manage to quotas was the primary reason that the Department imposed 100% observer coverage on the trawl fishery in 1996.” (Stanley et al. 2009)

3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity.
At-sea observer coverage approaches 100%; dockside monitoring is 100%. I see no weaknesses with monitoring.

4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement.


TAC offset: consistent overages/underages

Answered
Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended)
Underages (70% - 90% of recommended)
Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended)
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended)
Overages (110% - 150% of recommended)
Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended)
Justification
See table 2 (from Stanley et al. 2009)


TAC implementation variability

Answered
Constant (V < 1%)
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
Justification
See Table 2 in Stanley et al. 2